4 ms·

Apart from that of course you can sue anybody for anything (with more or less success); why would that be the case here? I mean isnt if neighbours are annoying

Apart from that of course you can sue anybody for anything (with more or less success); why would that be the case here? I mean isnt if neighbours are annoying a subjective thing? Do you know of any court ruling which implies one has to disclose the state of the neighbours?

ricardobayes 5y ago
Yes, and even if something is super annoying, it might be legal. For example they listened to music until 2-3 in the morning a lot of cases. Thumping reggaeton. And while it for sure wasn't over legal limit by decibel, the bass made my bed shake.
- lisper 5y ago
  It all depends. But in general you have a common law right to peaceful enjoyment of your property. http://bryancrews.com/private-nuisance-right-peace-quiet/ http://bryancrews.com/private-nuisance-right-peace-quiet/
  - nitrogen 5y ago
    The one noise ordinance I've read in full also said that, even if the decibel limit is not exceeded, an audible beat or bass can also be cited.
elliekelly 5y ago
There is a famous (among first year law students) case[1] that seems relevant given the nature of the issue is one a buyer would not reasonably be able to ascertain on their own. One possible point of differentiation: ghosts are a permanent defect on the value of the property while loud children living next door would probably only torment the homeowner for a decade or so at most. The opinion is famous not just for its unusual fact pattern but also because the Judge clearly had quite a lot of fun working in other-worldly puns and references while writing it. [1]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stambovsky_v._Ackley https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stambovsky_v._Ackley
- bscphil 5y ago
  Despite quoting the ruling at length multiple times in the article, there's not a single link to the actual ruling on that page, so far as I can find. Never change, Wikipedia. This seems to be the opinion: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3290684836490834623 https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=329068483649083...

ricardobayes 5y ago

Yes, and even if something is super annoying, it might be legal. For example they listened to music until 2-3 in the morning a lot of cases. Thumping reggaeton. And while it for sure wasn't over legal limit by decibel, the bass made my bed shake.

lisper 5y ago
It all depends. But in general you have a common law right to peaceful enjoyment of your property. http://bryancrews.com/private-nuisance-right-peace-quiet/ http://bryancrews.com/private-nuisance-right-peace-quiet/
- nitrogen 5y ago
  The one noise ordinance I've read in full also said that, even if the decibel limit is not exceeded, an audible beat or bass can also be cited.

elliekelly 5y ago

There is a famous (among first year law students) case[1] that seems relevant given the nature of the issue is one a buyer would not reasonably be able to ascertain on their own. One possible point of differentiation: ghosts are a permanent defect on the value of the property while loud children living next door would probably only torment the homeowner for a decade or so at most. The opinion is famous not just for its unusual fact pattern but also because the Judge clearly had quite a lot of fun working in other-worldly puns and references while writing it. [1]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stambovsky_v._Ackley https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stambovsky_v._Ackley

bscphil 5y ago
Despite quoting the ruling at length multiple times in the article, there's not a single link to the actual ruling on that page, so far as I can find. Never change, Wikipedia. This seems to be the opinion: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3290684836490834623 https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=329068483649083...